• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official India in New Zealand***

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No, it's completely different. It's pure bad luck hitting one slightly too fine and the keeper getting to it. When playing a leg glance off that sort of ball you don't try to place it anywhere, you're just trying to get something on it down to fine leg for a single or a boundary. If it goes that fine then it's just unlucky.
Precisely Jimmy, hence my point earlier that any knowledgeable cricket fan worth their salt knows that being dismissed strangled down the leg-side is unlucky. Surprised at Precam tbh, because I always thought he knew his cricket.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I'm here. I think you have to wait until both sides have batted before you can ask that questions, no?

In other news, how awesome would Bond be in these conditions?
This is a flat even bounced wicket. NOTHING in it. Okay I will wait till India pile 400-450 on this track. I hope you accept you lost the plot then.
 

JimmyGS

First Class Debutant
Otherwise every dismissal in the world can be termed as unlucky from the pov of the batsman. Including McCullum's.
No, because McCullum played at a ball he should have left. Arguing with you is so frustrating. You seem to spectacularly miss the point so often, it baffles me.
 

Precambrian

Banned
Precisely Jimmy, hence my point earlier that any knowledgeable cricket fan worth their salt knows that being dismissed strangled down the leg-side is unlucky. Surprised at Precam tbh, because I always thought he knew his cricket.
I really wish I knew cricket as I wanted to.

But I cannot deem any dismissal as unlucky as long as it is a valid one and a correct one. That includes even the "run out at bowlers end" of the non striker. Dismissals can be forced or unforced, but they have nothing to do with luck.
 

JimmyGS

First Class Debutant
I really wish I knew cricket as I wanted to.

But I cannot deem any dismissal as unlucky as long as it is a valid one and a correct one. That includes even the "run out at bowlers end" of the non striker.
Then you're not even arguing about luck, jesus. Do you even know the definition of the bad luck?

"an unpredictable outcome that is unfortunate."
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I can't catch highlights of the NZ innings on Max, only Bollywood movies. They've got out nearly all the top Kiwi batsmen out cheaply, but the time may have come to assess Vettori as a genuine batsman. I don't know how fast the Indians bowled, but to take out any batting side of decent quality for less than 300, with only four bowlers, within 90 overs, is quite an achievement. The question is, whether it can happen again. There doesn't seem much assistance to the seamers, and we saw Sehwag play himself into a start with little difficulty.

The batting will take care of itself, though the Kiwis have five arms to aim at the Indians, and with the batting strength they possess, the task is not too tough. Gambhir can turn the strike over time and again, and let Sehwag's bat do the talking. Dravid played himself into form in a first-class match in the lead up to this one, and Sachin may have recovered fully, on the back of that massive innings. Yuvraj is a dangerous player when he gets going, and can do what Ryder did for the Kiwis. The only suspect player here is Laxman, but the pitch is flat enough and the bowling may wear out by the time he's in. Getting the Kiwis out for a low score once again, however, will be a tough ask.
Why is Laxman suspect. He is all quality.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Well it wasn't the worst collapse ever, a few nuts and a poor decision made things all the worse for us. What we need is EXPERIENCE, a player who knows what to do when we're in trouble and sticks around.

To be fair to Guptill, it was a good delivery and we weren't in trouble at that stage.
Taylor also got a good 'un.

Flynn should have been a bit more cautious and McCullum was mind boggling. He's been that gritty worker all summer and he chooses NOW to throw caution to the wind?

McIntosh shouldn't be playing, How is in great form and we should have pounced on that opening partnership.

Feel bad for Franklin, would've loved to have seen what he was going to do in this situation.

Fair effort to Big Fat Jess and Vettori for building up a partnership and getting us some respectability here. With only Mills and O'Briens testicles left in the batting order we really need to have a big stand with this one.
Geez, I don't rate him either, but he did score a century and its only fair he gets a decent run.

Ryder showing awesomeness beyond his years here, pity the only brain he has is a purely cricketing one.
With McIntosh we should always try field our best team. Since we've decided to throw Guptill into the lineup McIntosh IMO should be squeezed out.
Nah McIntosh deserved a game imo. Give him the series plus the trip to India, that will be enough nails for his coffin.

Then How comes back :wub:
If he continues to play the way he played today, I see no reason why he shouldn't be dropped after the second test of the ensuing series.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
There's a substantial amount of luck in your still being here, given your tirade in that "leaving thread" but you don't see anyone going on about that.

By the way, how much luck was involved in the first Indian catch (was it Dravid?) he dropped it, and the ball happened to land in his hands after he'd hit the ground! I've never seen a catch like that before today. Incredible luck.
That was just a brilliant catch by Dravid. He backed himself and took the catch in front of the other slip fielder. Showed great timing, composure and reflexes.
 

Precambrian

Banned
So you think that being run out at the non-striker's end is neither unpredictable or unfortunate?
Why it is unpredictable? Having understood that too much backing up can result in such a dismissal, a good thinking batsman would already take care not to overextend himself. So it is an outcome that he knows about and hence is not predictable. And hence, if he indeed gets out in that manner, it means he's been not paying attention to that, and hence is his mistake and not unfortunate either.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sidharth Mongia said:
He was given out caught-behind, but Franklin can insist he didn't touch the ball. It happens.
Is that what he'd have said if an Indian batsman had been on the receiving end?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Because his quality has not yet translated into valuable knocks in swinging conditions, particularly in NZ, where his average is ****.
Nah, missing the plot.

In New Zealand he has played just THREE matches and that too on those skewed bowling friendly wickets pre World Cup 2003.

In Asia he averages 48, same as his over all average. In England where conditions swing the most he averages 46. Don't see what Laxman has to prove to say he can play swing bowling because he has shown right through his career that he is a class act.
 

Top